The United States Supreme Court is poised to weigh in on a case with global implications—not just for a group of Hasidic Jews seeking the return of sacred texts, but for how the United States handles foreign expropriations and holds autocratic regimes accountable. At the heart of Agudas Chasidei Chabad v. Russian Federation is the question of whether Russia can claim sovereign immunity to block enforcement of U.S. court sanctions after it expropriated and continues to hold Jewish religious texts seized during the Soviet era.
While the legal issue is technical, the stakes are anything but abstract. This is a dispute about whether justice in the U.S. system can be undone by geography—whether a foreign government that seizes valuable property from U.S. citizens or institutions can shield itself from liability simply by keeping the stolen items outside U.S. borders, and avoid the authority of the court before which it has appeared by simply ignoring its rulings.
The Books and the Backstory
The plaintiffs are members of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, who for decades have sought the return of the Schneerson Collection—a vast library of religious manuscripts, books, and letters accumulated by Chabad leaders over generations. The Russian government, through its national library and archives, continues to possess these texts, which were first confiscated by the Nazis and then appropriated by Soviet authorities.
For Chabad, the collection is sacred. These texts are not museum pieces—they are spiritual lifeblood. Their continued detention is not just a property dispute, but a violation of faith and history.
Why Sanctions Were Imposed
Russia initially chose to participate in the U.S. legal proceedings. But in 2009, on the eve of resolution, it withdrew from the case, declaring that continued litigation would compromise its sovereignty. In 2010, the U.S. District Court entered a final judgment, ordering Russia to return the texts.
When Russia refused to comply, the court found it in civil contempt in 2013 and imposed $50,000 per day in sanctions—not to punish, but to pressure compliance. Russia’s defiance was not passive; its Ministry of Foreign Affairs declared publicly that the texts were part of Russia’s “national heritage” and would never be returned.
The sanctions—now exceeding $175 million—are not merely symbolic. Chabad seeks to enforce them by targeting U.S.-based assets of Russian state-controlled commercial entities. That is what’s now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sanctions Are Not Subject to the Expropriation Exception
It’s crucial to separate two issues: the original taking of the texts and the consequences of defying a lawful U.S. court order. Even if one accepts that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) shields Russia from liability for the 1920s seizure, that immunity should not extend to the sanctions imposed for contempt of court.
Sovereign immunity is not a blank check to ignore U.S. judgments. Once a foreign state appears and defends in court and then walks away in defiance of its obligations, it should not be allowed to hide behind legal formalisms to escape consequences.
A Circuit Split—and the Better View
In rejecting Chabad’s enforcement efforts, the D.C. Circuit adopted a narrow reading of the FSIA. It held that the expropriation exception does not apply unless the stolen property—or property exchanged for it—is physically present in the United States. That interpretation blocks jurisdiction even when Russian state-controlled commercial entities operating in the U.S. are linked to the stolen items.
But this view is out of step with rulings from the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, which allow jurisdiction when an agency or instrumentality of a foreign sovereign that benefited from the expropriation engages in commercial activity in the U.S. That reading not only aligns with statutory purpose—it makes vastly better policy sense.
If the D.C. Circuit’s decision stands, it offers foreign states a roadmap for expropriating U.S.-owned property abroad and escaping U.S. court jurisdiction—so long as the loot stays overseas. It would insulate regimes that seize sacred items, art, real estate, or intellectual property, so long as they route it through state-owned entities and keep it offshore.
The impact would not stop with religious groups. Investors, NGOs, and diaspora communities would all lose a key tool of legal protection. In an era where state-controlled enterprises routinely operate in global markets, and autocracies are emboldened to expropriate property and silence dissent, the FSIA’s exceptions must be interpreted to prevent abuse—not codify impunity.
This case offers the Supreme Court an opportunity to affirm that sovereign immunity is not impunity. Russia’s continued possession of sacred texts is egregious enough. But its open defiance of a U.S. court order—and the attempt to shield its U.S.-based commercial assets from the consequences of that contempt—raises even broader questions about the credibility of the American legal system.
Justice demands more than formalism. It requires that those who flout the rule of law, especially sovereigns who once submitted to its jurisdiction—be held to account. The Schneerson Collection belongs in Jewish hands. And U.S. courts must retain the power to ensure that no foreign state can steal from American citizens with one hand and do business in America with the other.
